SoTrumpBelieve Must See Movie...

Dotsthavesp I wanted to but couldn't!

JinRoz For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

billoneil2 Sinister Cinema carries this title and like IMDb, they insist it contains "axe murders galore." In fact, there is not one single axe murder in the entire film. The first murder is by shotgun and the rest are by kitchen knife and filmed in such a tame and un-graphic way as to make it sometimes unclear whether the murder actually took place.This is an extremely low budget and amateur attempt at a murder mystery. Probably due to budgetary limitations (and the film maker's inexperience) it is shot so thin one can easily see the difficulties the editor had putting it together.While I can forgive the lack of funds it is harder to excuse the script. You will know who the guilty party is almost immediately. Throughout the film, clues are presented in such an obvious and over-stated manner as to leave no doubt in your mind. Consequently, there is no "big surprise" when the killer's identity is revealed.Another problem is the premise itself. The movie is clearly aimed at skirt-chasing heterosexual males who presumably accept a virtually all-female cast constantly trying to seduce the male lead. The first 14 minutes of the film are a tedious exercise in redundancy and implausibility, as our hero is flirted with by no less than six wannabe vamps.All these things aside, there are some pleasures to be had here. Lee Phillips, while completely wasted in such a poorly written role, nevertheless is talented enough to make his scenes plausible. A young James Farentino also shows promise in an early part as a thug. Although made in 1963, there is an abundance of late 1950s mood and style on display, which would completely evaporate by the following year when the producers made "Horror of Party Beach." A roughly-hewn, crude movie likely to disappoint you if you're searching for a forgotten-gem type film.

montecellic I watched this film because of oddly good reviews and repeated claims that it depicted axe murders. Being made in 1963, I was curious to see how this was handled. I was in for a huge disappointment, because...There are NO axe murders in this film. Not one. The first murder is by shotgun and all the others are via kitchen knife. Period.Essentially, this is a mystery/slasher wannabe. The plot is very crude and amateurish--you will know who the killer is before the first five minutes of the film, literally. Even so, the film's producers plant incredibly large, obvious, deliberate "clues" as to the killer's identity two or three more times during the course of the movie.They could have saved themselves the trouble. A child could guess the killer and the killer's motive is insanely improbable and doesn't really make sense.Another distraction, is how ineptly photographed and lit the film is. Very bad angles, etc. make it actually difficult to watch.And don't get me started on the script. The whole film revolves around teenage nymphets constantly throwing themselves at the male lead character. Everywhere he goes, they hit on him. This is pure fantasy on the producer's part. The only time women act like this in real life is when money is involved. Females have no libidos whatsoever in real life and do not try to seduce men everywhere they go just for the hell of it.There are two good things about "Violent Midnight." One is lead actor Lee Phillips, who had come along way (down) since 1957's "Peyton Place." The other is James Farrentino, who is quite hot in his tight tee shirt and Brylecreemed hair.For die-hard fans of the genre ONLY.

Scarecrow-88 A Korean "one-man war machine" who witnessed the loss of many soldiers in his platoon, has found his niche in art..yet Elliot Freeman(Lee Philips)is seen as the possible killer right at the beginning after his rather crazy middle-aged father is shot by someone in the bushes point-blank in the face. His sister, Lynn(Margot Hartman)was also present when that nasty incident took place and returns home after being away for 6 years to attend the Belmont School for Girls nearby Elliot's home. A psychopath murdered a former model of Elliot's and it is possible he's responsible, although, it's obvious(if you've seen your share of mysteries, it's obvious he's not the likely correct candidate to be the real killer)he's merely the fall-guy for someone else. Another possible suspect is muscle-headed studly biker creep Charlie(the chiseled, young James Farentino trying to summon Brando from "The Wild One")who dated the murdered model and the victim of an altercation with Elliot over her at a local pub. On the case is cop Palmer(a thin Dick Van Patten, speaking noir copper lingo)and his leads are few. Offered as a possible suspect is a school professor/peeping tom who likes to spy on the girls as they shower in their dorm rooms and out in the local swimming hole. Elliot has a love-interest who lives at a farm near his home named Carol(Jean Hale)whose life you know will be in peril at the end as the killer emerges with his/her mask unveiled. The real star of the film for yours truly was the sex kitten Lorraine Rogers as Alice St. Clair, the school tramp who is definitely one smokin' dame. She has a heated make-out session in the school laundry room with Farentino. With Rogers as the sex-bomb, you have Sylvia Miles, ugh, as the town ugly who is enamored with her man Charlie, although he(who could blame him?)looks elsewhere for sex. She is so in love with Charlie, Sylvia will cover up for him when the police come snooping for an alibi.Crudely made, amateurish shocker shows that it was independently made because the editing is anything but professional. The pacing lags, yet it's sleazy enough thanks to some naughty girls who like to unbutton their tops. I've seen worse, and this film has that exploitive nature thanks to the vicious knife attacks, so it works in fits and starts. But, the film gets bonus points thanks to Lorraine Rogers..she often made my heart skip a beat.

ferbs54 A film probably better known by its alternate, later title of "Psychomania," "Violent Midnight" (1963) proved a very pleasant surprise for me indeed. The film centers around Elliott Freeman, a young, reclusive painter who won't be a free man much longer if the local police have their way. One of Freeman's pretty young models has just been found knifed to death (the picture's debt to Hitchcock's "Psycho" is fairly evident during her suggested, shadowy slaying), and before long, one of his sister's co-ed friends follows suit.... An independent production more than ably helmed by Del Tenney, this film offers any number of unexpected treats. It features beautiful and artfully composed B&W photography; nice visuals of the Stamford, CT countryside; an intriguing, jazzy score; some surprising and titillating near nudity by a good number of comely lasses; and interesting performances by its largely no-name cast. The only performers I was at all familiar with here were Silvia (sic) Miles as a blond bar floozy; TV favorite Dick van Patten as a hard-boiled cop (!); and, in his first film role, James Farentino as a randy thug who can't seem to help getting in trouble. The actress Lorraine Rogers is also very fine as a blond, aggressively lustful student. The picture concludes quite suspensefully, with the knife-wielding killer stalking a very pretty gal during a thunderstorm. The killer's identity comes waaaaaay out of left field, I must say; don't even try to guess, unless you're infinitely better at these things than I am! This film also features one of the most deliciously morbid folksingers you'll ever want to hear; a perfect accompaniment to the chilly goings-on in "Violent Midnight." And oh...a great-looking print on this DVD, from the good folks at Dark Sky.